Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: I'm Afshin Ratansi and this is New Order. We're broadcasting globally, including to nearly 1 1/2 billion on RT India. On this program, we look at how India and the wider global south are navigating new alignments catalyzed by the war in West Asia. Which partnerships are emerging and how are these structural changes rippling around the world?
Diplomatic fault lines are widening, challenging long held assumptions. Tehran has ruled out direct peace talks with Washington, even as regional powers from Beijing to Islamabad push for negotiated outcomes that safeguard their own security. The Gulf, a cornerstone of India's energy security, has become the pivot of the New Order. The loss of US Control over strategic sea lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz, are in the spotlight. Global energy prices are rising, forcing New Delhi to reassess both its sourcing and its diplomatic strategy. India continues to seek careful navigation between the structures built by major powers as it tries to safeguard its economic and security interests. And as global markets reel and alliances shift, India's choices are emerging as a central pivot in a world struggling to contain another military defeat for the usa. Later in the program, New Order, Zahra Khan will bring you questions to the table and we'll answer as many as we can. But before that, I'm joined by an advisor. He's been an advisor to UN Secretaries General, including Antonio Guterres. He's been awarded one of India's highest awards, the Padma Bushan, and has worked with more than 20 governments, including Brazil, Russia, China, Venezuela and India. Columbia University's Professor Jeffrey Sachs has called the Iran, Israel, US Conflict a war of losers. And he joins me again from New York City.
Professor, thanks so much for coming on New Order. It's a fast moving war, obviously dependent on the whims of Donald Trump. But maybe if I can just start by asking you what happens to just say Indian fuel supplies, Obviously it affects Filipino supplies, Indonesia supplies. If Iran is bombed into the Stone Age and energy in West Asia is ablaze,
[00:02:14] Speaker B: of course the whole world will suffer. And I have to break the news to Donald Trump as well. The United States will suffer as well. If you disrupt, in fact, of course, crush a significant part of the world energy supply, you will get a global economic contraction and a major crisis across the world because as everyone's learning in a crash course on basic energy economics, it's not only oil for the gas tank, it's oil for fertilizer, for food production, for industrial petrochemicals, for an entire global supply chain that is deeply hurt by what is happening.
And if Donald Trump carries out what he said he would carry out of attempting to bomb Iran to the Stone Age, and Iran retaliates, as most military experts and most of us expected to do.
The catastrophe will be enormous in just a few weeks.
What Donald Trump gets wrong, and he gets wrong almost everything. But one thing that he really gets wrong is the idea that because it's a short war, it's nothing important.
In his speech, he compared the length of various wars, but in just a few weeks, the world's energy supplies could be catastrophically collapsed. Actually, not only the Strait of Hormuz, which is where the attention is now, but on the physical production from the oil and gas fields across the Middle East. And these are not protected heavily by anti missile defenses.
These are out in the open, the gas fields, the oil fields, the pipelines, the port facilities, the refineries.
And they're already being badly hit by both sides.
And if Trump carries through, it's likely that the destruction will multiply enormously in just a very short period of time.
[00:04:40] Speaker A: Now, I wish you were appearing on Trump's favorite channel, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, but you are appearing a lot, giving it 247 for Pete.
I notice, and I only want to dwell on it for a short moment because there are many other issues you have been talking a lot about, I suppose. I mean, what you just said about how Trump can't understand that there is a relationship between the United States energy resources, despite it being a net exporter, and what's happening in the Strait of Hormuz. And you've been Talking about the 25th Amendment, basically, and that he is suffering clinical illness. I mean, are there any rational explanations that you can understand for his strategy of destabilizing the world? Obviously, thousands killed, billions immiserated, and a million displaced. That's just in Lebanon.
[00:05:37] Speaker B: People who know my thoughts about this know that I believe that United States foreign policy in general for decades has been oriented around US Hegemony, in other words, US Control of the world. I regard that as delusional and dangerous, and that the US has fought many terrible wars killing many millions of people in the quest for this kind of hegemony.
And this, in some sense is part of that overall process.
So it's not that Trump is going against deep US Forces. He's not.
But clearly, when we watch Trump, we see the added personal and psychological dimension at work as well. There's an added level of delusion. I have said for decades that the main job of an American president is to keep the foot on the break of the war machine, if you put in a trillion dollars a year, that's actually not the right number. The number right number is about $1.5 trillion a year into a war machine. It revs all the time. Everyone can find a reason for war. Everyone wants to sell new military goods, Everyone wants to test their drones. Everyone wants to do all sorts of terrible things. And the job of a president is to stop that.
Most presidents fail.
The war machine revs in the United States all the time. There are wars all the time.
A good president can stop almost all, all of it.
One president in my lifetime really tried to stop, and that was John F. Kennedy, and they probably did him in for that reason.
I think there's good reason to believe Trump does not have a foot on the brake. He doesn't even know there's a break. He's not just saying.
[00:07:47] Speaker A: Can I just say that? Can you then understand the reticence of, say, a Modi in Delhi who has good relations with Netanyahu and Iran and the leaders in Iran from intervening as the brics president, given that's the context of who you're talking?
I mean, I don't like the Economist magazine. We've done a program. People can watch our program on the Economist magazine, but they're a cover about, you know, Napoleon's Maxim, don't interrupt an enemy when they're making mistakes. Can you see why India was reluctant to get involved in any negotiated settlement between Iran, on the one hand, and. Well, you've explained the kind of mental state of the country.
[00:08:31] Speaker B: Not quite. And let me try to explain, but let me just finish, if I might, about Trump.
And it's a little bit sad, alarming, and again, I'm neither a military expert nor a trained psychiatrist or psychologist, but I speak to these people all the time, both the military experts and the psychologists and psychiatrists.
Trump has a. Has a kind of mental instability called the dark triad personality. He is a narcissist. He is an extreme Machiavellian, which means don't trust him for one moment.
He is a psychopath, meaning kill people. Not my business, Not. Not my concern.
But people think that it is getting worse, that there's an added frontotemporal dementia that could be part of this mix losing control.
And they give certain kinds of clinical evidence. The way he speaks, the way he makes up the point.
Just to come back to this, I believe that this is a real concern and I just raise it because I think we're in very serious territory right now in the world. Now, having said all of that, I regard what Israel and the United States have done as a flagrant, reckless, utterly illegal, hugely dangerous war of aggression for no reason.
It's been called a war of choice. A better term that I heard a few days ago, a war of whim.
And I think that this is correct. I would say, by the way, that Netanyahu has similar psychological qualities to Trump. And Netanyahu speech just before. Trump's speech is equally alarming, equally delusional. Netanyahu speaks about the 10 plagues that he has put on Iran.
Now, mind you, the 10 plagues were in the Hebrew Bible, plagues that God put on.
Now Netanyahu is playing God vis a vis Iran and He lists the 10 plagues. This is a kind of madness. This is not political rhetoric. This is a kind of madness because it's also associated with a real war of murder and destruction. And as Mr. Trump said, also a kind of madness to put Iran back into the Stone Ages.
This is not normal. We have not heard rhetoric like this.
[00:11:27] Speaker A: But I'm trying to get.
[00:11:28] Speaker B: I know. Now, I'm going to come to your point.
I'm going to come to your point.
This has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped by grownups.
And there are only three grownups in the world right now that are in a position to stop this, and they should stop it together.
And that is Prime Minister Modi, President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin.
They are the leaders of the other three superpowers of the world.
They absolutely have a stake in the world not blowing up.
It's not a matter of not stopping Trump while he's making a mistake. Because the mistake in this case is not Trump's mistake. It is the world's disaster.
The grownups need to explain. Donald Trump, sit down, have a tea.
Put your feet up. You're not going to drive Iran into the Stone Ages. You're not going to do it. This is not how we do things in the 21st century, how we do things in the nuclear age. You've got to stop this.
We have to understand, and it's again, a sad truth that Israel has part of its political leadership in a 6th century BC mentality.
[00:12:57] Speaker A: Yeah. And I think people do understand.
[00:12:59] Speaker B: I do not exaggerate. I do not exaggerate.
[00:13:02] Speaker A: It was Pakistan, actually, weirdly, that got involved there, albeit with some China. There are negotiations separately about the Strait regarding Oman.
[00:13:11] Speaker B: Yes.
My view is that the only ones that can do this really are the brics.
India has the presidency of the BRICS one should not be a friend of Benjamin Netanyahu right now.
India as a great country and a superpower, should not be aligning with Israel, which has just committed a genocide in Gaza and now has launched a war of whim against Iran. This is not a friendship. This is not a strategic alliance. This is not a partnership. This is not in India's interest.
I regard India as a great country, as a great civilization, as an absolute core to global stability, and I regard Israel as a rogue nation that is, I think, suicidal, but is definitely homicidal.
[00:14:17] Speaker A: Professor Sachs.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: Professor, that should be understood.
[00:14:20] Speaker A: Professor Sachs will continue after the break. Keep watching the order.
You're watching New Order with me and Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor, in part one, we were talking about India's role perhaps in any negotiated settlement for West Asia and why it should seek an independent line. India has done over Ukraine refusing NATO nation admonition for importing Russian oil. And Modi completely rejected Trump's claim that somehow Donald Trump had solved the peace between Pakistan and India.
So do you want to see more of that?
[00:15:13] Speaker B: India definitely has the stature, the power, the dignity, the precision to say no to American delusions. India is four times the United States in population.
It is, I don't know, 10 times and longer, actually, in its civilizational history.
It can say to the United States, stop misbehaving, but I am suggesting that India do this together, not by itself, but together with Russia and with China, with Brazil, with the other BRICS countries.
I'm saying that for a couple of reasons. First, institutionally, India is the president of the BRICS this year. I regard the BRICS as tremendously important, as consequential and as beneficial for the world, as a stabilizer for the world, half the world's population, half the world's GDP major countries.
And to be able to say we're not in a US run world, we're not in a world where the US can declare it's going to put another country into the stone Ages. We're in a civilized world based on international law, on the UN Charter. So the BRICS presidency is a particular reason. Second, it isn't pleasant dealing with Mr. Trump, I have no doubt about it. So it's better to do it together with partners.
I like to think, and this is also another issue, but I like to think of India and China and Russia as partners, not only as fellow members of the brics, but as partners in saying we want a multipolar world, not a world of blocks and not a world in which the United states continues its 30 plus year delusion of hegemony.
So to my mind, safety in numbers, good company, Brics presidency. This is all a case for India's leadership. I also happen to believe in India that it can be a peacemaker, that it can really contribute consequentially. India's relations with Persia also go back a very long way. And so India's relations with Iran are deep and go back a long way. Part of the problem here is that the Western world is completely nuts because it's owned and operated by the United States. And so you have an attack on Iran and then every European reaction is Iran is attacking and you say, excuse me, Iran was just attacked.
No, no, Iran is attacking. It's attacking these innocent countries in the Gulf, forgetting that Israel and the United States just bombed Iran. So what I would suggest is everybody watch Donald Trump again. The tape where he says, we're going to put them back in the Stone Ages. He was very helpful. Thank you. Mr. Trump. You explained the American purpose. Okay? Then India can say, that's not a good idea. We're not going to repeat the fanciful lines of Europe, which are vassal states of the United States, and just repeat that Iran is doing something terrible. No, we're going to actually be dignified and proper and say that this started with a vulgar aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran and it's got to stop that way too. So a solution has to ensure security for everybody, not just passage through the Strait of Hormuz. That's how the UK empire talks about, or would be empire, former empire talks about it. That's how Europe talks about it. As a matter of convenience, look at how terrible Iran is.
But what I'm asking India and China and Russia to do is to speak honestly.
We can't have wars of aggression to drive countries into the Stone Age. We can't have the President of the United States proudly talking about decapitation as if this is normal. Yeah, maybe ISIS would do that. But that's the President of the United States talking about decapitation.
Come on.
[00:19:46] Speaker A: The United States did of course back isis, Naesh.
[00:19:49] Speaker B: No, it created it. Let's be clear. Okay, but that's a. But the point I'm making is when it's so vulgar and so clear, I don't expect most of Europe to stand up.
I understand they are occupied countries by the US But India is not.
And that's why I expect India and China and Russia to be able to be clear about these issues. And they constitute by themselves 3 billion people and 3 superpowers and 3 dignified countries.
So that's why I expect them to be able to help Donald Trump to stop himself. He's an impulsive personality. The US Is an impulsive country. It's a very young, not very clever country. It's celebrating its 250th year. It's a baby in the world civilizations. It needs some help to stop misbehaving.
[00:20:49] Speaker A: Well, there may still be some strategic thinkers there. Who knows who will have heard what you just said and will be developing ways themselves of trying to manipulate and create differences between Russia, China and India to prevent the new order, a more peaceful order that you.
[00:21:10] Speaker B: By the way, this is a very.
[00:21:13] Speaker A: What should we be looking for as to how they will be manipulating those three countries in particular, but, say, trying to make India not be part of the new order?
[00:21:24] Speaker B: Look, I. I have a basic theorem, excuse me, that all the world's problems go back to the British.
And then I get complaints from people in Scotland and Wales to say, don't blame us, it's the English. Okay, let's be precise. All the world's problems may go back to the English. I'm not sure whether it's the British or English, but the problem between India and China goes back to 1914, to a line drawn on a map arbitrarily in a conference in Simla by a Mr. McMahon, who had never been to the places where he drew the line with the British Empire putting its desired border of the British Raj someplace on the map in the middle of the Himalayas. And this has created the border disputes with China. It's a long, fascinating story.
The point that I try to make to both leaders in both countries who are, in my view, leaders of two great civilizations, is that a line drawn on the map in 1914 should not hinder cooperation between the two great giants of the world today who have a mutual interest in a multipolar world operating under international law.
So I very much want China and India to cooperate with each other. I want them to see the border dispute for what it is. It's real. It's caused by the British. It's caused by events of the British Empire in 1914 in particular.
And it should not dominate the current policy, political and economic interests of two great countries that should actually get along with each other. And I think that the BRICS is a very good mechanism for fostering that kind of cooperation because it also builds institutions like the New Development bank and other initiatives on behalf of the world in which India and China are joined. In a very practical, positive way.
[00:23:43] Speaker A: Thank you. Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
[00:23:46] Speaker B: Great to be with you. Thank you.
[00:23:52] Speaker A: Now I'm joined by new orders, Zahra Khan to answer some of your questions. Zahra, I thought Professor Jeffrey Sachs, I think he better get on the phone to Antonio Guterres and say end this war now and use some of those blue berets.
[00:24:06] Speaker C: I think, I mean, as people who are living in the conflict zone, I think that's something we would all love to see if peace was on the cards.
But quickly getting into the questions by our audience, Christopher Dawe wants to know, is BRICS going to create a new clearinghouse for world commerce?
[00:24:20] Speaker A: Yeah, Professor Sachs was very optimistic about brics. At least he's always been a big supporter of it. A clearinghouse I'm not sure is even necessary. If you think about it, Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world, manages to do business no problem, has the highest GDP by PPP in the whole of Europe. Since the Russian response to NATO provocation in Ukraine, countries have managed to clear fund without any problem, it seems. And of course, if you look at the deals being done at the moment here in the Gulf on the Strait of Hormuz, it's clear the deals are being done without any need for the US Petrodollar, let alone Swift.
[00:25:01] Speaker C: Right, and it's great that you bring up Swift because Mariam wants to know how can Iran bypass economic sanctions more quickly through brics and how does Iran overcome the Swift hurdle as well as secondary sanctions that might limit other countries trading with it?
[00:25:15] Speaker A: I actually lived in Iran for a year and there was no Swift and the country ran perfectly fine. In fact, the largest shopping mall in the world is in Tehran. I think China and Iran are competing for that. And of course Dubai Mall used to be it.
So swift, I think its days are over as a system unless it's going to be recycled in some post Iran war, post Ukraine war kind of peace settlement. This really is a pivot in world history where the Swift system, the Bretton woods system, they're over, it's finished. And BRICS doesn't even need to go into the complex negotiating that must have gone on in 1945 already. These processes are afoot so that global south countries can trade without any ability for Western nations, NATO, Western nations to understand how the trade is done, to understand the amounts of trade that are done, let alone stop the trades.
[00:26:16] Speaker C: So maybe we'll have to look at where SWIFT stands in the new order. Shiloh from Johannesburg is asking why do BRICS leaders still entertain a two state solution.
[00:26:25] Speaker A: That is a question that I almost want to throw it back to the audience.
The fact that BRICS members keep talking about a two state solution shows some kind of diplomatic lethargy.
They've called out a genocide after all, Saudi Arabia called out a genocide.
So who wants a two state solution with a sharing it with a genocidal war criminal state? I think that is a question that is going to have to be asked. But then again, the United States has to, after its defeat against Iran, leave Israel alone and stop subsidizing it. Israel only exists because of the subsidy, right?
[00:27:08] Speaker C: Thank you for your answers, Afshin. And the questions keep coming and we'll continue this next week.
[00:27:12] Speaker A: All right, Sara, thanks.
And that's it from me. Hinritazhi on NEW Order. Remember to follow us on social media. And here's a question for you. How can Modi Putin or Xi Jinping pressure Trump to end the war in Iran? Send us your answer on X at newordertv. Join us every Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and how India's decisions are central in this New Order.
